Socks?

[jritchie]

So they can come out with anything they want too written on their socks and no matter what color they are or how stupid they look we can't say anything at all, pitiful! I'm like MOofficial though, just give it time, they will have something about them soon!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jritchie

So they can come out with anything they want too written on their socks and no matter what color they are or how stupid they look we can't say anything at all.

Several years ago the NFHS came out with a rulings about "offensive" tattoos. I'm sure that if a team came out with socks with vulgar, or in some other way, offensive (racial, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, etc.), writing on them, that we could find some NFHS rule, or interpretation, to apply and penalize.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jritchie

So they can come out with anything they want too written on their socks and no matter what color they are or how stupid they look we can't say anything at all, pitiful! I'm like MOofficial though, just give it time, they will have something about them soon!

That's right, unless as Billy notes the writing is offensive or objectionable.

We have girls in this area who wear the Dr. Seuss socks.

[BillyMac]

1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rule Book, page 70, Points of Emphasis: Permanent tattoos pose problems if they are objectionable for one reason or another. School administrators and/or coaches have an obligation to have objectionable markings of a permanent type covered. It is not in the best interest of the game to have officials placed in a position where from game to game they must rule on what is objectionable. Obviously, officials can and will make these decisions when outright vulgarity or obsenity is involved or when such markings violate sportmanship and/or taunting or baiting regulations.

[Oz Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rule Book, page 70, Points of Emphasis: Permanent tattoos pose problems if they are objectionable for one reason or another. School administrators and/or coaches have an obligation to have objectionable markings of a permanent type covered. It is not in the best interest of the game to have officials placed in a position where from game to game they must rule on what is objectionable. Obviously, officials can and will make these decisions when outright vulgarity or obsenity is involved or when such markings violate sportmanship and/or taunting or baiting regulations.

Now I'm neither american, nor a lawyer, but how does this fit in with the First Amendment rights to free speech? Not trying to stir anything up, just genuinely curious

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Oz Referee

Now I'm neither american, nor a lawyer, but how does this fit in with the First Amendment rights to free speech? Not trying to stir anything up, just genuinely curious

Obscenity is not protected, for one.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of venue nor medium. IOW, I can't force the NY Times to print my opinions. Nor can I force a billboard owner to accept my advertisements.

Freedom of speech is further limited in academic venues; students are not permitted to incite violence, hatred, or even disruption.

In non-scholastic basketball, first amendment rights are irrelevant as the government is no involved in any way shape or form.

In scholastic ball, with state funded schools, one could possibly make the argument that telling students what they can't wear on their uniforms (or socks) is government censorship. However, obscenity is not protected in a scholastic format (or any other format, broadcast radio, for example.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Oz Referee

Now I'm neither American, nor a lawyer, but how does this fit in with the First Amendment rights to free speech?

What is "obscene" under U.S. law has plagued our courts for the last fifty years. Many people don't realize that in American society, which trumpets free speech, that there are many restrictions on speech, including restrictions on adult or sexual images and words, or "obscene" materials. Other forms of unprotected or regulated speech include: speech which creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action; speech which contains narrowly predefined "fighting words"; written or spoken untruths (libel, slander, fraud) which may be punished by civil suit; speech which is false or deceptive advertising; speech which threatens others; and speech with restrictions justified because the government can demonstrate a "narrowly tailored" "compelling interest". "Obscene" speech is "unprotected" speech as ruled by the Supreme Court. "Unprotected speech," means speech that does not enjoy First Amendment protection and may even be criminal to express. In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced, but I know it when I see it"

I read in the today's newspaper that the Australian government is trying to encourage it's citizens to decrease their alcohol consumption, especially binge drinking. How's that going? We tried that from 1920 to 1933. Didn't work.

[Oz Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What is "obscene" under U.S. law has plagued our courts for the last fifty years......

Yeah I have always found it amusing at how censored American TV shows are, compared to Australian programs. I have never (that I can recall) seen a mainstream US show that uses the F (or even S) word, or directly mentions things like abortion. While these are much more prevalent in Australian made programs (not suggesting this is better/worse, just different).

Considering that we have no Bill of Rights or constitutional right to the freedom of speech, I find it kind of ironic that it appears that the US mainstream media is more censored than ours.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I read in the today's newspaper that the Australian government is trying to encourage it's citizens to decrease their alcohol consumption, especially binge drinking. How's that going? We tried that from 1920 to 1933. Didn't work.

Yeah, this has been an ongoing issue for a while. In Australia the legal drinking age is 18, which is also the age that most people leave school and get their drivers license.....you can imagine the consequences. Also in the last 3-5 years there has been a dramatic increase in binge drinking by teens, largely blamed on the price and marketing of Ready-To-Drink "alco-pops" (Jim Beam and Coke etc). As a result, the government increased the tax on RTD's by 100% about 6 months ago. This did nothing to help the problem, in fact has just made more young people drink spirits that they mix themeselves.
As well, there is some talk that the Australian government is going to ban ALL advertising of alcohol, including sponsorship of sporting events/teams. Will be interesting to see if that has any impact - it seemed to work when the same ban was put in place for tobacco.
As a high school teacher, I am very interested in seeing what happens with these issues......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Oz Referee

Yeah I have always found it amusing at how censored American TV shows are, compared to Australian programs. I have never (that I can recall) seen a mainstream US show that uses the F (or even S) word, or directly mentions things like abortion. While these are much more prevalent in Australian made programs (not suggesting this is better/worse, just different).

Considering that we have no Bill of Rights or constitutional right to the freedom of speech, I find it kind of ironic that it appears that the US mainstream media is more censored than ours.

Freedom of speech was, essentially, to ensure freedom of political speech. Censoring obscenities does not affect political speech, so many feel it is less of an issue. Others feel that any censorship is bad, as it eventually spreads.

We may have a bit more censorship of the obscenities, but our libel laws are a bit more geared towards the speaker than in other countries.

While the language and nudity are certainly censored by the FCC here, topical restrictions are purely market driven. Stations aren't prohibited from airing the stuff, they just shy away from it because viewers won't want to see it.

Originally Posted by Oz Referee

This did nothing to help the problem, in fact has just made more young people drink spirits that they mix themeselves.
As well, there is some talk that the Australian government is going to ban ALL advertising of alcohol, including sponsorship of sporting events/teams. Will be interesting to see if that has any impact - it seemed to work when the same ban was put in place for tobacco.
As a high school teacher, I am very interested in seeing what happens with these issues......

Interesting that your government could ban such a thing. Not even possible here due to, well, free speech issues.
I'm curious, have smoking rates gone down in your country?